What should rural homes look like?

[Glutton4...]

I like the French take on building your own house, as heard on the Grand Designs episode with the couple who built their back wall out of tyres rammed with earth. It was shown again, recently.

They said the French Government say; "Go ahead, it's your risk - if it falls down, it's your fault, and up to you to rebuild it!"

Whether this is true, or not, I have no idea, but I love it!

[bearded bloke]

He built it without because he knew they would never approve it. Because it's far too lovely.

I thought the gvt were relaxing planning laws; or is that only for some people who apply?

Much more like is that he built it out of arrogance expecting people to say oh how lovely & kick off about the council rightly wanting it pulled down.

The relaxed bit covers extensions,conservatories,& loft conversions to existing properties,NOT new builds

[zazen999]

Much more like is that he built it out of arrogance expecting people to say oh how lovely & kick off about the council rightly wanting it pulled down.

The relaxed bit covers extensions,conservatories,& loft conversions to existing properties,NOT new builds

Arrogance? Do you know him well?

A safe and sturdy £15k house should not be pulled down on principle, it should be used as an example of how to do it - it's people like him that test the system that move our society on - rather than slavishly following what the man says all the time. Good luck to him.

I know for a fact that people do this all the time. Because it's a private person and not a developer everyone is up in arms.

[Newton]

bearded bloke is spot on.......very perceptive.....there would be chaos if we all went around building on our gardens........

The house is very beautiful though!!!

It's not just planning permission too.......what about his regard for the building regs to make sure all work is to a safe standard......did he flout that too?

[Glutton4...]

... A safe and sturdy £15k house should not be pulled down on principle, it should be used as an example of how to do it - it's people like him that test the system that move our society on - rather than slavishly following what the man says all the time. Good luck to him.

I know for a fact that people do this all the time. Because it's a private person and not a developer everyone is up in arms.

Totally agree!

... It's not just planning permission too.......what about his regard for the building regs to make sure all work is to a safe standard......did he flout that too?

Having worked on 'new build' sites, where all the 'rules' are followed, I can say 'hand on heart' that his 'tree house' will be better built, more sturdy, and probably need far less maintenance than a 'proper' house!

This house is the way we should be going, not the way it currently is. When are people going to wake up!?

[julesapple]

I think it's some righteous clip-board carrying prat.

I understand about planning permission, and generally it's a good thing, and you shouldn't have one rule for one person and not for another. But common sense is also a good thing.

This house can't be seen by anyone, it's not an eyesore, it's not in anyone's way, it's on his land (I presume) so I don't see that it is 'harmful to the rural character of the locality' quite the opposite. This guy, Charlie, can't afford to bribe planners with big fat 'S106 Agreements'......

[zazen999]

bearded bloke is spot on.......very perceptive.....there would be chaos if we all went around building on our gardens........

The house is very beautiful though!!!

It's not just planning permission too.......what about his regard for the building regs to make sure all work is to a safe standard......did he flout that too?

I worked in construction for 14 years, and then worked in training in construction for 9 - and I can categorically tell you that builders who are building a house for themselves to live in build a different house to ones they are selling. If they can flout building regs they'll do it believe me.

[Glutton4...]

It's on his Dad's land, Jules.

Round here it's a combination of the 'who-you-know' and 'back-hander' systems. Not very many people get planning permission for new build BIG houses. With the exception of the BIG landowning farmers. One of whom used to run the planning department...

Call me cynical...

[taff]

If it's his land, let him do what he wants as long as he's not ahrming anything or polluting anything.

[Newton]

I worked in construction for 14 years, and then worked in training in construction for 9 - and I can categorically tell you that builders who are building a house for themselves to live in build a different house to ones they are selling. If they can flout building regs they'll do it believe me.

Very good point Zaz......the system might not work very well like e example you have pointed out but it is there to protect those of us who are buyers.

If Charlie wants to sell his beautiful house........which he might or might not then the buyer need the same protection as everyone else that the house has been built well and safely........Charlie appears to Be a very very fine craftsman......but if I were to build a house in the garden it wouldn't be........so we need the rules the protect us all.

[julesapple]

It's as bad as that chap, with planning permission, who built the cruck framed house on Grand Designs. Unless it's changed, his PP was granted as long as, when he leaves, the house is destroyed. He can't even leave the house to his children. And it is the most beautiful house.

[zazen999]

Very good point Zaz......the system might not work very well like e example you have pointed out but it is there to protect those of us who are buyers.

If Charlie wants to sell his beautiful house........which he might or might not then the buyer need the same protection as everyone else that the house has been built well and safely........Charlie appears to Be a very very fine craftsman......but I'd I we're to build a house in the garden it wouldn't be........so we need the rules the protect us all.

But the rules don't protect everyone. Otherwise no buildings would fall down ever. And the rules only apply if an inspection picks up on rules being broken.

[veggiechicken]

I have no intention of taking sides in this discussion - or of being insulted - or having my posts deleted.
So here are a few facts to consider before reaching any conclusion on this building:-
Planning for rural development in Wales is different to that in England.
Wales has a stated aim of "One Planet Development"
There are Planning policies for sustainable rural development set out in http://wales.gov.uk/docs/desh/public...netguideen.pdf
If you look at the Lammas Initiative Lammas Home Page that is said to be near the building under discussion there are similar buildings that have planning permission.

[zazen999]

I'm not taking sides either - I'm saying that if it IS safe, and habitable, and not obstructing anyone's view or light etc - then demolishing it just because it hadn't gone through the system is wrong.

If it IS unsafe, uninhabitable, or not meeting specific unresolvable health or safety issues - with good reasoning behind it - that's different.

[mothhawk]

It would be interesting to know why the young man was so sure he would be refused planning permission in the first place. There is usually a good reason for that. Did he really believe that once up, however beautiful, it would be allowed to stay? Shades of Dale Farm...